Duke v. Hogan
This text of 116 S.E. 598 (Duke v. Hogan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1. The use of the word “ plaintiff ” instead of the word “ defendant ” in the charge of the court, where the context plainly showed the use of the word was a mere slip of the tongue, and such as [361]*361was not calculated to mislead the jury, will not necessitate a new trial. Hoxie v. State, 114 Ga. 19 (6) (39 S. E. 944), and citations; Berry v. Clark, 117 Ga. 964 (2) (44 S. E. 824); Southern Ry. Co. v. Merritt, 120 Ga. 409 (47 S. E. 908); Lothridge v. Varnadore, 140 Ga. 131 (2) (78 S. E. 721); L. & N. R. Co. v. Culpepper, 142 Ga. 275 (2) (82 S. E. 659), and citations; Loe v. Brown, 155 Ga. 24 (116 S. E. 309).
2. The verdict is supported by evidence.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
116 S.E. 598, 155 Ga. 360, 1923 Ga. LEXIS 68, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duke-v-hogan-ga-1923.